Response to Offeror Questions document.pdf

Q&A Document Date: July 31, 2026

Subject: Questions & Answers, 26RFP19511

In accordance with the subject Request for Proposal (RFP), the following are answers to questions which have been submitted prior to 5PM July 10, 2026. These questions are for informational purposes only; they do not alter the requirements specified within the RFP. Any changes to the RFP will be accomplished by the Office of Procurement Management through an addendum.

*The State's response will be in red font following the Vendor's question.

1. Does the State have item specifications for use in item development for the three content areas, or should we include development of these documents in our proposal?

The State does not. The vendor should include this in their proposal

2. The RFP does not mention blueprints for Math and ELA, which are essential to item development plans and construction of test forms. Should we assume creating blueprints is to be included in this proposal, or will the state provide them?

Our current blueprints are located at https://doe.sd.gov/Assessment/alternate.aspx.

The plan is to work with the vendor to revise our blueprints that are aligned to South Dakota’s updated content standards, which are located at https://doe.sd.gov/ContentStandards/.

3. The RFP clearly outlines the need for item development but does not discuss constructing test forms. Will the contract also include that activity for all three content areas?

Yes

4. Will the test design for Math and ELA specify linear or computer-adaptive testing?

We are interested in stage adaptive if the item bank has enough items. Otherwise, fixed form (unless the item bank can handle stage adaptive or computer adaptive)

5. What is the current alternate assessment program used by South Dakota, and who is the incumbent contractor?

Math and ELA – Multi-State Alternate Assessment (MSAA) with Cognia

Science - Cambium

6. Does the state have an existing style guide for each assessment?

The State does not have this and it would be the vendor’s responsibility to provide this.

7. Please provide the current and projected annual student counts by grade and content area (ELA, Math, Science) participating in the alternate assessment.

South Dakota typically has about 100 students who participate in the alternate assessment per grade level. For grades 3-8 and 11, that is about 700 students total for ELA & Math. For grades 5, 8, and 11, that is about 300 students for Science.

8. The RFP states the assessment is administered one-on-one by a certified teacher. Will teachers enter student responses directly into the platform during testing, or may responses be captured offline and entered later?

Typically, the teacher will enter the student responses directly into the platform.

Responses may be captured offline and entered later for situations such as writing prompts, constructed response items, or administration via Paper Version.

9. Beyond human voice recordings, what accessibility supports are required or currently approved by the State? Is there an accessibility guide?

MSAA Test Administration Manual - pp. 25 – 29

SDSAA Test Administration Manual – page 15

10. Does the State have a preferred standard-setting methodology (Bookmark, Angoff, Body of Work, Performance Profile, etc.)?

No. We would want to get our Technical Advisor Comity (TAC)’s recommendations.

In the past, panelists participated in the Assertion-Mapping Procedure, an adaptation of the Item-Descriptor (ID) Matching procedure (Ferrara & Lewis, 2012).

Consistent with ordered-item procedures generally (e.g., Mitzel, Lewis, Patz, & Green, 2001), workshop panelists reviewed and recommended achievement standards using an ordered set of scoring assertions derived from student interactions within items. Panelists mapped each scoring assertion to the most apt achievement-level descriptor (ALD).

11. Has the current alternate assessment system received federal peer review approval? If not, please identify any outstanding peer review findings that should be addressed by the new contractor.

Reading/language arts and mathematics AA-AAAS (MSAA) in grades 3-8 and high school: Meets the requirements of the ESEA

Alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA- AAAS) in science in grades 5, 8, and high school (SDSAA): Substantially meets requirements of the ESEA o 3.2 – Validity Based on Cognitive Processes For the South Dakota Science Assessment-Alternate (SDSAA): • Evidence that the State has documented adequate validity evidence that its assessments tap the intended cognitive processes appropriate for each grade level as represented in the State’s academic content standards (e.g., submission of a cognitive lab study with SDSAA items or other evidence the assessments tap the intended cognitive processes for each grade level as represented in the State’s academic content standards).

o 3.4 – Validity Based on Relationships with Other Variables For the SDSAA: • Evidence demonstrating adequate validity evidence that the State’s assessment scores are related as expected with other variables (e.g., submission of the external validity studies identified in the submission when completed).

o 4.3 – Full Performance Continuum For the SDSAA: • Evidence demonstrating the SDSAA assessment provides an adequately precise estimate of student performance across the full performance continuum for academic assessments, including performance for high- and low-achieving students (e.g., submission of a plan for improving measurement precision to ensure more accurate estimates of student performance across the full range of achievement).

12. Can the State provide prior technical reports and peer review submissions to inform proposal development?

Alternate Assessment Technical Reports

Alternate Assessment Science Peer Review

Alternate Assessment ELA Math Peer Review

13. Does the State own the existing item bank and assessment content for each content area, and will those materials be available to the awarded contractor?

No for ELA-alt and Math-alt.

For Science-Alt, SD owns the SD-specific items, but not all of the items used on our assessments. Some of the items are shared with the MOU.

14. Does the State prefer pricing to be organized by:

project phase, deliverable, annual contract year, student volume, or another format?

Annual contract year, deliverable, and project phase

Current billing is invoiced quarterly or monthly

It would be preferred to have a per-student rate, as well.

15. Has the State established a budget range or anticipated funding level for this procurement?

No, but cost will be a main determinant when selecting a vendor. Reference Table 1 for the Proposal Content Evaluation and Score Criteria in the RFP.

16. What service-level expectations does the State have for help desk operations, including hours of availability, support channels, response times, escalation requirements, reporting requirements and cadence, and any required service levels?

The Help Desk should be open Monday–Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Central Time (except holidays or as otherwise indicated)

The help desk should provide a call number and an email address for South Dakota districts. South Dakota educators should get immediate assistance when calling, as well as responses to emails within a couple hours if the issue is serious.

17. Are there historical helpdesk /contact center volumes for the current alternate assessment program including calls, emails, tickets, chats, and/or peak-day/peak-week volumes?

For Science-Alt, the current vendor indicated 257 total cases for 26-27

18. What is the expected number of active users by role, including state users, district coordinators, school coordinators, test administrators, technology staff, etc.?

3 state users

Approximately 110 to 149 district test coordinators

About 350-400 test administrators/teachers

Up to 110 district administrators

A couple of South Dakota Bureau of Information and Technology (BIT) staff if necessary

About 110-149 district technology coordinators (if this is necessary)

19. What is the number of participating districts and schools for the most recent alternate assessment administration?

110 of South Dakota’s 149 public school districts participated in 2026 alternate assessment administration.

20. Please clarify whether help desk support is expected only during the March/April administration window or also during pre-administration setup, training, reporting, and post administration.

There should be support available throughout the school year. During the testing window, the help desk needs to be able to provide immediate support to South Dakota districts.

21. Approximately how many students tested for ELA, Math, and Science alternate assessments per grade and per year?

We typically have about 100 students participate in the alternate assessment per grade level. For grades 3-8 and 11, that is about 700 students total for ELA & Math. For grades 5, 8, and 11, that is about 300 students for Science.

22. Is there a requirement to preserve the previous score reporting scale? Assuming new scales will be established, is there a desire to build concordance between the scores from the old and new scales?

Score reporting would be directly related to the scaling of the new assessment.

The chosen vendor should be able to build concordance/alignment between the old and new reporting scales.

23. Does state have any paper-based test to be delivered as part of scope?

The alternate assessment should have a paper-based option to allow for students who have Paper Version as an accommodation on their Individual Education Program. Ideally this will be a printable option on the platform, so districts can access the printable version themselves. Large print can be accommodated at the district level.

The chosen vendor should offer Braille and language translations, as well, if necessary.

24. Please provide the current and projected state, district, and school users count.

3 state users

Approximately 110 to 149 district test coordinators

About 350-400 test administrators/teachers

Up to 110 district administrators

A couple of South Dakota Bureau of Information and Technology (BIT) staff if necessary

About 110-149 district technology coordinators (if this is necessary)

25. How many students are assessed at each grade by the alternate assessment?

We typically have about 100 students participate in the alternate assessment per grade level. For grades 3-8 and 11, that is about 700 students total.

26. Which content areas are assessed at each grade by the alternate assessment?

Grades 3-8 and 11 participate in ELA & Math. Grades 5, 8, and 11 participate in Science.

27. Is South Dakota willing to adopt the Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Consortium’s Essential Elements for English language arts and Mathematics with an alignment study to the South Dakota English Language Arts and Literacy Standards and South Dakota Mathematics Standards as the state’s English language arts and mathematics alternate academic achievement standards in leu of the development of state specific English language arts and mathematics alternate academic achievement standards?

Yes

28. Is South Dakota willing to adopt the Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Consortium’s Essential Elements for Science with an alignment study to the South Dakota Science Standards as the state’s science alternate academic achievement standards?

Yes

29. Will South Dakota accept an alignment study of the currently approved South Dakota Science Core Content Connectors (CCCs) / Alternate Academic Achievement Standards AAAS) to the DLM Science Essential Elements as an approach to using the DLM Science Alternate Assessments.

Yes

30. No cost sheets or budget template were included in the RFP. Does SD have a preferred format for the detailed budget?

See answers to questions 14 and 15.

31. Will South Dakota accept an alternate assessment solution that does not use Human Voice Recording called out in section 3.3.b.iv? Could the state please clarify how and what data elements are to be updated daily according to 3.3.b.ii requirement, "Update platform student lists daily based on the SD statewide longitudinal data system"? Does the state use a data exchange standard such as Ed-Fi?

SD is willing to hear alternative options to Human Voice Recording.

Currently, students are updated daily using a nightly student file from our statewide longitudinal data system, which includes students’ names, grades, disability categories, alternate assessment designations, etc. The chosen vendor would hopefully be able to receive these nightly files.

SD is not Ed-Fi compliant.

32. Could the state please clarify reporting requirements in 3.5.a: "Reports for districts are to be in real time, so educators receive their results immediately." What information exactly is expected on these reports? Are the reports referenced in section 3.5.a the Individual Student Summative Reports for each content area?

This refers to individual student reports, as well as student results in the vendor’s reporting system. Results do not necessarily need to be available in real time, but they should be available shortly after the student finishes testing.

33. Will SD consider an alternate assessment solution that does not include immediate real time score reporting?

Score reports should ideally be available within one-two weeks of test completion, or within one week maximum of the close of the test administration window.

34. Are the Parent Letters indicated in 5.b.ii. to be printed and will they include copies of student score reports? If so, please provide details including number of copies required, will reports be printed in black/white or colored, any additional documents needed and how many locations reports will be shipped to.

The vendor is responsible for providing PDF versions of these for the district to print. The vendor will not print Parent Letters or Student Reports, though. District-level testing coordinators are responsible for printing these.

35. Is there an option for South Dakota to offer a different set of contract terms and conditions or a different type of contract, e.g. Inter-Governmental Agreement, for successful bidders who are state agencies rather than corporations?

Yes. The vendor must accept South Dakota’s terms and conditions (or come to consensus with South Dakota). South Dakota will initiate the contract process.

The contract will then be sent to the vendor to sign via DocuSign.

36. 4.2.2 Hosting and Data Access Requirements - Please elaborate on requirements for “The State must have the ability to manipulate data, run reports as needed, pull code tables, access raw data, and develop dashboards” in the context of a SaaS solution for Alternate Assessment.

The State needs to be able to search/filter/navigate district-level users and students on the platform, view assessment progress of students, and view student results, to assist districts in real-time with their questions.

37. 4.2.3 Single Sign-On Requirements and 4.2.4 SSO Logout Initiation Requirements -Would the absence of SSO be considered a disqualifying factor for the Alternate Assessment solution?

The South Dakota Bureau of Information and Technology (BIT) strongly recommends single sign-on, but they are willing to work on a solution with the vendor if SSO is not possible.

38. 4.2.16 Website Requirements - Please confirm this requirement applies to development projects for the state and not the Alternate Assessment system.

This applies to anything developed specifically for the State.

39. 4.4.2 Import and Export of Data Requirement - Please elaborate on the requirement for allowing “the State the ability to import or export the State’s data piecemeal or in its entirety at the State’s discretion without interference from the Offeror” as it applies to a SaaS-based Alternate Assessment solution. Specifically, please clarify:

What data sets must be importable and exportable (e.g., student records, educator accounts, test registrations, assessment results, accommodations, reports, audit logs, uploaded files, and system configuration data)?

o The pre-admin student data will be imported directly from the SD statewide longitudinal data system; not a separate upload. District test coordinator accounts will need to be created/uploaded. District test coordinators will create test administrator accounts. Post-admin student results and user lists will need to be exportable.

What is meant by "piecemeal" export (e.g., by student, district, school, assessment administration, date range, or other criteria)?

o Users should be able to filter the data in the system/reports by the examples listed above.

What formats are required for data import and export (e.g., CSV, JSON, XML, API-based access, or database extracts)?

o Imported student nightly file should be provided via RESTful API. We can support CSV or JSON as the format.

o Exported data should be in CSV and XLSX

Does the requirement include self-service capabilities available directly to authorized State users, or would vendor assistance be acceptable for certain data types or volumes?

o Yes, this requirement includes state user self-service capabilities. Vendor assistance should be available on an as-needed basis.

Are there any expectations regarding export frequency, timeliness, automation, API access, or associated costs?

o Yes and No, the State should be able to export as needed without additional cost to the State.

Does this requirement extend to historical data, archived records, and supporting documentation or report files stored within the solution?

o The requirement includes any State data in the system.

Understanding these expectations will help ensure our proposal addresses the State's operational, reporting, and data portability requirements.

40. 5.12 mandatory state for inclusion in the proposal. Do the fingerprint background check apply only to those staff with access to South Dakota student PII?

Fingerprint background checks will be required for any staff who meet the requirements stated in the section.

Questions for Exhibit E - Required IT Contract Terms

41. VIII. Non-disclosure and Separation of Duties - We have all staff sign a non-disclosure agreement prior to accessing Kite or any resources. Will that meet this requirement?

Yes

42. XII. Audit Requirements - How do the audit requirements apply to vendor hosted solutions that run in the cloud (e.g. Azure, Amazon Web Services or Google cloud)?

We would want to understand how the Vendor audit’s our usage of any application, no matter where the application is hosted.

43. XVI. Access Attempts - Does the 7-year log retention apply for the Alternate Assessment solution?

Segregating those logs and applying a 7-year retention schedule would add complexity could be a significant cost driver.

o If you don’t currently keep these types of logs for seven years, please note in your response how long these logs are kept as that timeframe is negotiable.

44. XXIV. Browser - Would PHP be allowed for a website that has no State data and is used for hosting manuals as well as for program communication?

o Maybe. If your proposal includes websites that use PHP, please note that and provide the current version of PHP you’re using and explain how you keep the PHP up to date.

45. XXXI. Security - We are moving to a standard monthly update for all application servers with additional updates as needed to address high and critical vulnerabilities. For the Alternate Assessment system would monthly remediation for medium & low security issues be acceptable?

o The timeframe to remediate medium and low security issues is negotiable. In your response, please provide the timeframes for those remediations that fit your business practice.

46. XXXI. Security - Please confirm that State access to source code is not a requirement for a vendor hosted SaaS solution as that is not a requirement in Exhibit F Information Technology Security Policy Contractor Version 6.0.

o Subsection E is usually only applicable to custom State development projects.

47. XXXI. Security - Please confirm Item E is only applicable for State development projects.

o Subsection E is usually only applicable to custom State development projects.

48. XXXI. Security - Please confirm Item F is not applicable for a vendor hosted SaaS platform.

o Subsection F is usually not applicable to a vendor hosted SaaS solution.

49. XXXIII. Security Scanning - For a vendor hosted, multi-tenant SaaS platform can existing security scans be shared to avoid accidental data exposure and/or unexpected disruptions in service?

o If a vendor system will house sensitive data, the preferred requirement is for the State to perform a website vulnerability scan of the application in a test environment. This item may be negotiated during contract negotiations, but there is no guarantee.

50. XXXVI. Denial of Access or Removal of Application or Hardware from Production - Please confirm that this only applies to dedicated/state-hosted solutions.

o This requirement applies to state hosted solutions.

51. XXXVII. Movement of Product - Please confirm that this only applies to state-hosted solutions.

o This requirement applies to state hosted solutions.

52. XXXIX. Load Balancing - Please confirm that this only applies to state-hosted solutions.

o This requirement applies to state hosted solutions.

53. XL. Backup Copies - Please confirm that this only applies to state-hosted solutions.

o This requirement applies to state hosted solutions.

54. XLI. Use of Abstraction Technologies - Please confirm that this only applies to statehosted solutions.

o This requirement applies to state hosted solutions.

55. XLII. Scope of Use - Please confirm that this only applies to state-hosted solutions.

o This requirement applies to state hosted solutions.

56. XLIV. Web and Mobile Applications - Please confirm that this only applies to statehosted solutions.

o No. This requirement applies to state or vendor hosted solutions.

57. LX. Scanning and Audit Authorization - Does this apply for the Alternate Assessment system running on a vendor hosted, multi-tenant SaaS platform? If so, can an existing security audit be shared?

This requirement applies to vendor hosted solutions.

58. LXI. System Upgrades - Does the scanning requirement apply for the Alternate Assessment system running on a vendor hosted, multi-tenant SaaS platform?

o This requirement applies to vendor hosted solutions.

If so, can an existing security scan be shared?

o If a vendor system will house sensitive data, the preferred requirement is for the State to perform a website vulnerability scan of the application in a test environment. This item may be negotiated during contract negotiations, but there is no guarantee.

59. Are DocuSign signatures on the substitute W9 and other forms acceptable, given that this is an electronic submission?

Yes

60. Please confirm whether a standard cost proposal template will be provided or if Offerors should submit the cost proposal in their own format.

Offerors should submit the cost proposal in their own format.

61. The RFP states that email submissions must be limited to 20MB. Given the number of required sample plans and other attachments (see Sections 4.1, 5.4, 5.6), can submissions be sent in two or more emails if necessary? For example, may all required attachments be included in a second email as a supplement to the core proposal submission?

Yes

62. Does South Dakota require printable accommodated forms such as Large Print, Braille, and language translation? If so, please provide estimated quantities.

The alternate assessment should have a paper-based option to allow for students who have Paper Version as an accommodation on their Individual Education Program. Ideally this will be a printable option on the platform, so districts can access the printable version themselves. Large print can be accommodated at the district level.

The chosen vendor should offer Braille and language translations, as well.

63. 4.1 Requirement Traceability Matrix-Please detail the State's expectations regarding the content and format of the Requirements Traceability Matrix identified as a required attachment.

This would be documents which document what the requirement is in the RFP and how a vendor’s solution would address that requirement. The content and format is up to the vendor in how they want to present that information

64. 4.1 Go-Live/ Cutover Plan- Please clarify the State's expectations for the required Go-Live/Cutover Plan. Is the intent for Offerors to provide a technology-focused Transition Plan describing system implementation, testing, readiness activities, and the process for moving the proposed solution into full operational use?

Yes.

65. 4.1 Data Conversion Plan- Please detail what data South Dakota may require an Offeror to convert as part of the contract: e.g., quantity, frequency, timeline, etc.

The vendor should be able to recieve a nightly student data file that will update the students information in the system during the testing window

66. Section 5.11: The RFP states “In this subsection, the offeror’s proposal must provide the requested information and identify the individuals who will fulfill the roles for the offeror.” Is there specific information the State is requesting for this section that vendors should respond to?

Please provide the resumes of staff that have important rolls in this bid.

67. Section 6: Is there a cost sheet vendors are required to fill out to ensure cost information is submitted in a uniform manner?

No, but cost will be a main determinant when selecting a vendor. Reference Table 1 for the Proposal Content Evaluation and Score Criteria in the RFP.

68. Section 3.1(Develop Alternate Academic Achievement Standards): Will the selected Offeror also be required to develop ALDs alongside the AAS for Math and ELA?

Yes

69. Section 3.2 (Develop Test Items):

Are the sample questions/practice tests required for the proposal submission, or are they an expectation of the actual contract?

Sample questions/practice tests will be part of the actual contract, so educators have this resource to use with students through the school year to familiarize students with the platform or use as an informal assessment.

We assume you will want the selected Offeror to propose blueprints for the new Math and ELA assessments. Will these new blueprints need to be reviewed by educators (similar to the new standards and the new items), or will State-only review suffice?

We will determine this with the chosen vendor.

Are there any item-level accommodations beyond Human Voice Recording that are required as part of the item development costs?

A printable paper version needs to be available for students who have Paper Version as an accommodation on their Individual Education Program.

Accommodations of Assistive Technology, Scribe, and Sign Language will be made at the district level.

The chosen vendor should offer Braille and language translations, as well

70. Section 3.3 (Provide Assessment System): The RFP suggests an online-only assessment. Does this mean that the Offeror is not expected to provide any paper-based assessments?

No. The alternate assessment should have a paper-based option to allow for students who have Paper Version as an accommodation on their Individual

Education Program. Ideally this will be a printable option on the platform, so districts can access the printable version themselves.

The chosen vendor should offer Braille and language translations, as well

71. Section 3.7 (Conduct Standard Setting): Is Standard Setting only required for Math and ELA, or will it be required for Science also?

Standard Setting would be required for math, ELA, and science, unless the vendor had a different solution for determining performance level cuts. The solution would need to meet peer review requirements.

72. If vendors are not proposing state hosted solutions, please clarify how the State would like vendors to respond to the requirements in Section 4.3 (State Hosted Solutions [On-prem or State Cloud] Requirements), subsections 4.3.1 – 4.3.6.

Indicate not applicable as no State hosted solution option is being proposed.

73. We understand South Dakota currently administers the MSAA test in ELA and Math. Will the State continue to have access to the MSAA item bank during this new RFP contract period?

The chosen vendor will not have access to the MSAA item bank.

74. Section 5.11: The RFP states “In this subsection, the offeror’s proposal must provide the requested information and identify the individuals who will fulfill the roles for the offeror.” Is there specific information the State is requesting for this section that vendors should respond to?

Please provide the resumes of staff that have important rolls in this bid.

75. Section 6: Is there a cost sheet vendors are required to fill out to ensure cost information is submitted in a uniform manner?

No, but cost will be a main determinant when selecting a vendor. Reference Table 1 for the Proposal Content Evaluation and Score Criteria in the RFP.

76. Section 4.2.3 requires deliverables with a login component to integrate with the State's standard identity management service (SSO). To correctly scope the SSO integration, could you please clarify:

Identity service coverage. Which user populations are expected to authenticate through the State's SSO? Department of Education staff only, district and school personnel (such as district test coordinators and certified teachers), or all users of the system? Do these users already have identities in the service, or will some require account creation during onboarding?

o All users. We will work with the chosen vendor on this process.

Identity attributes. What user attributes (claims) are provided through the ID token or

UserInfo endpoint?

o We will work with the chosen vendor on this process.

Role and permission management. Should application authorization be driven by State-managed group or role claims, or is the application expected to manage authorization internally after authentication?

o State users will inform the system of approved district-level test coordinators.

Those district test coordinators can then create/assign their own test administrators.

o The Vendor should provide options on how roles can be managed and authorized within their system.

Users outside the State SSO. If any expected user population is not covered by the State's identity service, is application-managed authentication acceptable for those users, subject to the approval process described in the ITSP?

o We will work with the chosen vendor on this process.

77. Section 5.4 references “state agency support.” Can you please clarify what constitutes support

(e.g., financial, personnel, etc.)?

The vendor should provide a contact person and/or a customer service/help desk to assist the State agency.

78. Section 2 of the RFP, Standard Contract Terms and Conditions, indicates “...The offeror must indicate in its response any issues it has with specific contract terms. If the offeror does not indicate that there is an issue with a specific contract term, then the offeror will be deemed to have accepted the contract terms as written.” Would a redline version of the applicable Exhibits, including inserted comments, be considered an acceptable method for identifying exceptions, objections, or requested revisions to the contract terms and conditions? If not, please clarify the required format and specifications for submission of such comments.

Yes.

79. Section 4.1 references several proposal requirements. Can you please define the following.

Requirements Traceability Matrix” o This would be a document which documents what the requirement is in the RFP and how a vendor’s solution would address that requirement. The content and format is up to the vendor in how they want to present that information.

Go-Live/Cutover Plan” o The vendor will propose a Go-Live/implementation plan.

80. Section 4.2.2 references a Section 6.7 that describes a “solution diagram”. The solution diagram is cited in Section 5.6.2. Was the reference to Section 6.7 an error, or was Section 6.7 mistakenly omitted from RFP?

The reference to Section 6.7 is an error.